ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 1 DG G 3 C
|
|
- Willis Mathews
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 EUROPEAN UNION EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA AND INNOVATION COMMITTEE ERAC Secretariat Brussels, 4 July 2017 (OR. en) ERAC 1206/17 NOTE From: To: Subject: ERAC Secretariat ERAC delegations Final Report of the ERAC Ad-hoc Working Group on Measuring the Impact of EU Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation at National Level Delegations will find annexed to this Note the final report of the ERAC Ad-hoc Working Group on Measuring the Impact of EU Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation at National Level, as adopted by written procedure. ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 1 DG G 3 C EN
2 ANNEX ERAC AD-HOC WG ON Measuring the Impacts at National Level of the participation in EU FPs Final Report Summary The present report proposes a template for Member States and Associate Countries to assess the impact at national level of the participation of their national research and innovation organisations in the EU Framework Programmes. The report takes as its starting point that such impact has to be understood multidimensional level. Hence, it identifies different impact dimensions, in addition to the structure of national participation in the programmes: structuring impacts, scientific impacts, innovation impacts, economic impacts and societal impacts. Such a template, however, cannot have the ambition to resolve issues of attribution, nor can it provide complete harmonization of the analysis between the different MS/AC. Measuring impact is complex, relying on sophisticated methodologies, and its depth depends on several factors such as available datasets, maturity of national RDI systems or interactions with local funding schemes. As such, the template focuses on the identification of indicators, which are either generally available or traditionally used without requiring a very significant dedication of resources. The template provides a series of indicators, for the different dimensions of impact, which MS/AC are invited to use in their own national impact studies, and which include indicators which are considered to be core to the template. Such use is expected to contribute to improve national assessments by facilitating comparison across the ERA and by implementing a longitudinal analysis. ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 2
3 Introduction and objectives Following the mandate of the ad-hoc WG the present report proposes a template for the assessment of the socio-economic impacts of EU Framework Programmes (FPs) at national level. This harmonised impact evaluation template [is] based on (i) a core set of evaluation questions, (ii) common evaluation methodologies, (iii) common indicators and (iv) available common datasets and available EU and national databases to assess the socio-economic impacts of EU Framework Programmes at national level. At the heart of the objective in the development of a harmonised template is the interest in developing analytical and methodological practices for the assessment of the impact of participation in the Framework Programmes (FPs) at national level, which can have a common reference basis for comparison across Europe. At a time when studies on the impacts of research and innovation activities are expanding, such process is expected to contribute both to improving the comparability of data, of particular relevance when Member States and Associated Countries (MS/AC) are considering the impact of their activities through an international programme like the FPs, and to guide and consolidate the practice of assessing the impact of national participation. The latter point is of particular importance taking into account the diversity of previously existing practices in this regard. While some MS/AC have previously developed studies of the impact of national participation (with different degrees of depth), several other MS/AC have not gone beyond the monitoring of participation levels and participation structures in the FPs. The latter monitoring is certainly a relevant dimension for analysis, and one that is considered in the Template presented in Annex, but one that can only be considered as a starting point for a fully-fledged impact study. Hence, in the present report it was clear that there was a need to consider different levels of expectation regarding the extent of the impact analysis to be proposed and the suggested methodologies, as these might differently correspond to already implemented practices or, on the contrary, to practices to be implemented. As such, we take here as a guiding principle the need to guarantee a template that has the conditions to be implemented throughout the different MS/AC. However, we considered that it was important to take into account methodologies which have already showed relevance, but which may require greater investment in its application, namely ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 3
4 because of difficulty in collecting comparable data. As such, we propose to consider a basis set of indicators (based on availability of information at ecorda database) and to identify additional indicators, when relevant, that could be compiled by MS/AC depending on data availability and resources available. It is also acknowledged that the area of impact assessment of research and innovation policies is under significant development. This regards methodological advances, as well as developments in the production of new relevant data. Strong developments in research information systems as well as in the uses of big data are relevant examples. As such, the template proposed here should be considered as a living document, open to further development. This template should promote a first set of guidelines that can provide an important contribution for MS/AC to assess the impact of their participation in the FPs with a basis for comparison, but also that such template should not be seen as limiting to further developments. It is to be expected that, as MS/AC develop specific indicators/methodologies/data not considered here and that can be considered as of interest for the adoption by other MS/AC, this template may be adapted accordingly. National objectives from participation in the FPs The identification of the relevant research questions to assess the impact of national participation in the FPs relies on the specific objectives that MS/AC have regarding their participation in the FPs. The general objective of Horizon 2020 is to contribute to building a society and an economy based on knowledge and innovation across the Union. This should be achieved by strengthening the scientific and technological basis of European industry and society, promoting a European research area in which researchers, scientific knowledge and technology circulate freely. While these objectives, benefitting the ERA and European industry as a whole, are also necessarily reflected at the national level, these may have differing impacts at the national level. In addition, considering the different contexts of the national research and innovation systems, the S&T basis and the competitiveness of the economy at national level, the impacts of participation in the FPs will differ, and national objectives regarding participation are expected to reflect these differences. ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 4
5 As such, it was clear that an initial specification of national objectives from participation in the FPs was needed, to reflect in greater detail expectations and potential impacts. The distinct objectives reflect how each MS/AC can better understand the role of national strategies and support instruments in motivating participation and promoting its positive impact at the national level. From this we are able to identify the following distinct objectives, that are shared by all MS/AC: Identifying financial return of national participation in FPs o Are there significant differences in success of participation across instruments/organizations? Improving internationalization of research and innovation communities o Do European networks build on existing links? Do they build new international links? Improving research quality and promoting research careers o How do research results compare with other similar programmes? Achieving economic/innovative impact o What was the impact in terms of innovation in participating firms? Upgrading of technological/innovative capabilities o Has participation in FPs contributed to strengthen technological/innovative capabilities? Improving innovation capabilities in specific emerging fields o Has participation in FPs contributed to develop new technological/innovative capabilities in emerging fields? Creating economic spillovers at national/sectoral level o Does national participation cluster in specific sectors? ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 5
6 Promoting societal impact of research o What wider societal impacts can be identified? o Has civil society organisations (CSO) participation led to new lines of action/collaboration? These different objectives have led us to identify different main dimensions that correspond to potential impacts at the national level from the participation in the FPs, and which reflect the different national objectives. These are presented below in more detail according to the following dimensions of analysis: participation structure; structuring impacts; scientific impacts; innovation impacts; economic impacts; societal impacts. The indicators can be used to monitor change overtime, both between MS/AC, as well as for an individual MS/AC. Trend analysis can be used to identify change, growth for instance. The following sections introduce the relevance and justification of each specific impact dimension and the indicators/data identified to be collected. It should be noted that the present report identifies the common questions, indicators, data and sources, as requested by ERAC. Naturally, these indicators are not expected to stand alone in the impact assessments to be developed in the future. The analysts from each country, who will implement the template recommended here, will have further information and knowledge, both through additional existing secondary materials as well as by contextualizing such figures within their knowledge of the system, through which to analyse ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 6
7 the results from the indicators suggested below. The indicators identified below are considered precisely as sources which can provide essential information for an appropriate analysis of the impact of the participation at the national level. Policy context of impact and methodological issues The analysis of the impact of research and innovation projects and programmes has seen significant debate in recent years among the academic and the policy-making communities. Several developments have led these upsurge in interest. In the policy context the increasing pressures on public budgets resulting from the global economic crisis, as well as the greater global competitiveness through research and innovation activities, has led to needs for improved basis for allocation of resources as well as greater demands for accountability, requiring a better understanding of the impact of public initiatives. Developments in research and innovation practices, through increased globalisation of these activities, together with open innovation processes, has led to a more open and shared processes of knowledge production and use, launching new questions regarding the flows of knowledge and modes of impact. The digitalisation of innovation and knowledge production has at the same time created new traces of knowledge flows, suggesting that the identification of more varied forms of knowledge flows and impacts may be facilitated. Research information systems have been widely developed in this line (e.g. EuroCRIS, OpenAIRE). Accordingly new services have emerged in this area, together with alternative metrics, at the same time as the dominance of quantitative metrics is questioned (Wilsdon et al., 2015). This has also led to developments in assessment processes, with particular interest being placed in the identification of impacts that go beyond the traditional focus on scientific indicators and firm based innovation processes. The UK REF exercise, implementing in large scale the assessment of the societal impact of academic research as one institutional assessment criteria (with similar trends in other countries), has had a relevant impact in this debate, and has been followed by extensive academic analysis. ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 7
8 However, the developments in the area are not fully consolidated and still lack in their systematization and international comparability. In preparing this report and template the central objectives of comparability and usability by the different countries were considered to be central. While the first has primary implications regarding the sources of data and standardization of methodologies (and is clearly noted in the mandate of the WG), the second has largely to do with the investment associated with the development of the impact assessment analysis. These were points of internal discussion and of sharing of expectations and needs. In this regard, there was a central concern in developing a framework which does not entail significant additional work of data collection or very advanced analytical methodologies of data processing. There was also a concern, put forward by several representatives, regarding the burden placed on the beneficiaries, from requests for additional information or survey response (survey fatigue has been highlighted), and on the national administrative offices with responsibility for monitoring participation and for implementing this impact assessment. Considering this, the WG focused on identifying indicators and methodologies, which best reflected the impact assessment objectives and the underlying questions, for which there are data readily available, or for which there are sources clearly identified. Data from secondary sources, of a qualitative nature (such as other national or international reports), was also considered. In this way, a primary level of comparability, which addresses different dimensions of impact, is guaranteed to a reasonable extent. There are, of course, differences at the national level in the existing information infrastructure, or on the existing prior experience in the assessment of the impact of the national participation in the FPs. But the underlying information infrastructure at the European level regarding the FPs 1, together with other existing exercises of production of indicators to assess, for example, the consolidation of the European Research Area, provides an important basis to develop an appropriate impact assessment. 1 The indicators identified often refer to H2020, rather than FPs. Also, specific pillars, or instruments, of H2020 are mentioned. These references to the current FP should be seen as being made simply for the purpose of simplicity and more concrete exemplification. The template is considered to be applicable to other FPs, with the necessary adaptations (e.g. Societal Challenges have been introduced in H2020, but a similar instrument/programme can be identified in other FPs). ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 8
9 In this way, it was decided not to favour surveys among the methodologies proposed for this study, considering the additional burden on beneficiaries, as well as the investment required, together with concerns regarding the robustness of survey data for impact assessment in research and innovation activities. Case studies are considered in particular dimensions, when the collection of qualitative information is of primary relevance. Limitations of impact assessment Impact assessment analysis in the field of research and innovation has serious limitations that are widely recognized, and must be noted. The impacts of research and innovation tend to have a long time lag between investment and concrete impact. There are certainly outputs, such as publications, which can be identified in the short term, but these are only indicative of the direct results of the research activities. The socioeconomic impacts of the activities often result from several subsequent interactions, including during the project, and uses of the project s results and outputs, involving further projects and other intermediaries. In assessing the impacts of participation in a specific project, and the impact of the corresponding public support, the time passed may not be sufficient to appropriately identify the corresponding impacts. Policy-makers require results which can be used to steer subsequent initiatives and programmes, thus preferring to assess the impacts shortly after the end (or at interim period) of the public support programme. The traces of the flows of knowledge, underlying trajectories of impact, may not be easily identifiable (as some studies have found, this may be better followed through a qualitative approach; developments in research information systems are also improving the potential traceability). Additionally, the issue of attribution of impact to a specific direct intervention poses several challenges. Impacts result from different paths and from the accumulation of several interventions (and also externalities). So, isolating the impact of a particular instrument, or of the Framework Programme, may be difficult. There are specific methodologies to address this issue, and these are taken into consideration here when possible. Nevertheless, the issue of attribution is particularly difficult to address with this dimension of intervention, largely of a collaborative nature. ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 9
10 In this regard, there are different methodological approaches that are considered to best address this issue. In relation to macro-level impacts, such as structuring impacts on the system, the template considers the identification of national comparative indicators, to assess the extent to which the corresponding indicators promote improvements in the system, or international comparisons in relation to the dimension of the research system (namely in relation to the number of researchers in FTE). The development of case studies can also contribute to address specific questions, for which the case study approach may contribute to better understand the underlying processes of impact, and the relations with participation in FP projects. For the dimensions of scientific, innovation and economic impact, the existence of relevant meso- /micro-level data facilitates the identification of corresponding control groups. In scientific impacts national scientific publication data, according to the relevant research field, is a relevant comparative unit. For firm level data, the existence of national level surveys (e.g. CIS survey, R&D survey, or other databases, namely from private sources) can provide the underlying data for comparison, provided that, in articulation with the corresponding national statistical body and with the appropriate requirements regarding data privacy, it is possible match the firm identification through registry data 2 to identify participants and those non-participants that can constitute a control group (e.g. using propensity score matching). Societal impact assessment is a field in development. At present, there are no set methods or databases. However, there are concepts that are generally agreed upon. Data and indicators which provide evidence on distinct channels, partners and publics which reflect forms of societal involvement in or use of research are central. The recent development of altmetrics is a case in point, contributing to identify the wider visibility and impact of research. Thus, the approach taken here partially addresses the concerns regarding attribution by identifying different dimensions of impact and by collecting multiple indicators that reflect different processes through which these impacts are produced. In this way, we expect that an overall picture of the impact of national participation in the FPs, and of its different dimensions, can be drawn from the proposed approach. 2 Privacy regulations may differ in this regard. ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 10
11 It is important to note that we are focusing here particularly on the benefits accrued from participation in the FPs. It must be noted, however, that participation in the FPs may also have negative impacts. Some may result from the lack of additionality vis-à- vis national interventions. These are expected to be identified, if existing, through quantitative methodologies proposed here. Other negative impacts may be related to indirect impacts in the system, for example regarding the extent to which the dynamics of the national system coincide, or not, with those of the FPs. These may be identified through qualitative approaches. Impact Dimensions For each of the dimensions of analysis identified (participation structure; structuring impacts; scientific impacts; innovation impacts; economic impacts; and societal impacts), the sections below present an initial overview and rationale for the corresponding dimension, followed by the identification of the relevant indicators and source data. The Tables below present more detailed information for each set of indicators, including references to sources and methods. Before analysing the more concrete dimensions of impact, it is important to have a wider overview of the country s participation in the FPs, as it provides an overall view of the structure of national participation. This analysis corresponds to the base level which the different MS/AC are already developing, and to which this template can also contribute to harmonise. Participation structure The analysis of the structure of national participation in the FPs corresponds to the most common form of monitoring developed by MS/AC. Participation data has the advantage of reflecting the formal information regarding proposal submission and formal project contracts, and therefore this is the data most easily accessible. ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 11
12 While in earlier FPs these data were mostly made available through Programme Committees, it has now been structured in standardized form, across the different programmes and instruments, in the ecorda database. As such, it is easily available and provides the background information on participation on the FPs. While it includes already normalization procedures in the application process (e.g. existence of PIC number which allows the correct identification of organisations), it still has limitations, namely in the identification of individuals and teams (because it is based on the contractual process, it often has information on research managers or institutional representatives rather than on the actual principal researchers). As participation data is essentially focused on the proposal and contract phase (which can be considered as outcomes of application processes, but are starting points for the research phase), these data do not have the limitations that exist when impact assessment processes focus on outputs and outcomes of the research projects themselves. As previously mentioned, it should be noted that the analysis of the participation structure cannot be considered a dimension of impact assessment as such, but rather a dimension for the monitoring of performance of the system. Nevertheless, as will be seen below in the section on Structural Impacts, participation levels can be considered to be relevant indicators of structural impacts at national level of the participation in the FPs. ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 12
13 Indicators Regarding the analysis of participation structure we highlight different dimensions: Number of projects awarded3, number of projects coordinated, number of total national participations, total funding awarded to national participants o these absolute values should be made comparable in relation to each country s research base (as measured by the number of researchers in FTE) and comparable in relation to the yearly progression; o these absolute values should be made comparable in relation to each country s share of the total value for the same variable across the FP; o these figures signal the level of involvement of the national research and innovation communities in the dynamics of the European FPs, and hence higher levels of participation have the potential to have a wider impact at national level; Success rates in the application process, and share of applications included in the reserve list. (i.e. assessed above the threshold); o these figures are directly comparable across countries, or to the FPs average; o figures should distinguish between overall success rates and the success rate of proposals coordinated by a national partner; o figures should be prepared across pillars/instruments and according to organization types; 3 References to number of projects refer to number of projects with at least one legal entity from the MS/AC. References to funding refer to funding awarded to national participants, not the total funding to the project. References to team refer to the research team (researchers, independently of nationality) from the legal entities from the MS/AC participating in the project, not all the researchers, from the different participating organisations, in the project. References to national or country refer to the country (MS/AC) applying the template, unless otherwise noted. ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 13
14 o these figures reflect both the capacity to participate, or to lead, in successful proposals, hence a recognition of research quality, and are also indicative of efficiency in the investment made in the application process, with lower success rates signalling a negative impact, in terms of resources invested in the application process which did not lead to a funded research project; Number of cooperation links resulting from participation in FPs o Cooperation networks should be compared vs earlier FP or vs national profile of research collaboration (e.g. in scientific co-authored publications) o Main partner countries according to projects with links o Comparison with countries overall participation distribution in H2020 (normalising through relative collaboration index) o Comparison with country pre-existing dominant collaborative pattern (earlier FP or internationally collaborative publications) o Presenting network analysis graph o Cooperation networks can identify direct contribution to extend existing collaborative links. Distribution of participation by the different types of organisations (HEIs, PRIs, SME, LFs, Other) and regions; o these figures should be primarily considered at the level of distribution of participations; number of projects with national participants from each organisational type, as well as number of project coordinators from each organisational type; finally success rates can also be analysed according to type of participant; ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 14
15 o it should be noted that the type of participant is expected to reflect, to a large extent, the distribution of participant type per programme; as such, comparative analysis should be made mostly at the level of pillar and programme; the deeper analysis of type of participation will be developed in the corresponding dominant dimension of impact; o these figures should be primarily considered at the level of distribution of project participations; number of projects with participants ; success rates and funding distribution will also be relevant to comparatively assess both weight of programme/instrument in national participation (with implications for the analysis of the dimensions below), with regard to funding distribution, and to assess performance, through success levels compared to the overall FP success levels for each pillar; o further analysis at the level of specific programmes/instruments will be developed in the context of the more relevant impacts below; ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 15
16 Table 1 - Participation Structure Questions Methodologies Indicators Databases Has the success of national participation in the FPs improved? Statistical analysis - Share of participations (C*) - Share of coordinations (C*) ecorda National STI statistics - Share of FP funding (C*) - Success rates of application (C*) Have national actors prepared high-quality proposals? Statistical analysis - Share of applications in reserve list (C*) - across instruments, organization types (C*) ecorda National STI statistics Do European networks build on existing links? Do they build new international links? Network analysis - Cooperation links (C*) Programme data (ecorda) National STI statistics Are specific institutional actors more successful in participating? Statistical analysis - Institutional distribution of participations (HEIs, PRIs, SME, LFs, Other) (C*) Programme data (ecorda) National STI statistics Does the regional distribution of participants reflect national distribution? Statistical analysis - Regional distribution of participations (C*) - Regional cooperation links Programme data (ecorda) National STI statistics ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 16
17 Structuring impacts The participation in the European FPs has impacts that go beyond the micro-level of the individual participant. It may have a wider, structuring impact at the level of the system. Structuring impacts are particularly relevant in relation to the national policy-making processes and at the organizational level of the system. The assessment of structuring impacts at the national level from the participation in the FPs can be largely framed through the lens of the ERA Roadmap. The priorities that have been considered to delineate the ERA Roadmap reflect the MS/AC view on dimensions that are essential to structure the European Research Area. While this may be considered to be largely an impact at the European level rather than at the national level, it should be noted that the MS/AC have also considered these priorities at the national level, through the National ERA Roadmap initiatives, and as such do have relevant national RTI policies. Several ERA-Indicators are defined and used in the ERA progress monitoring. There is no need to duplicate them. Some of the indicators used to monitor ERA progress are directly related to Horizon An example for this is the so called Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator, which relates to ERA objective 1 Effective national research systems. It covers four dimensions including two dimensions with direct reference to Horizon 2020: 1. ERC grants per public R&D to proxy the success of countries in securing ERA-wide project based funding and 2. Participation in Marie Sklodowska-Curie Fellowships to proxy the extent of researcher exchanges across national, sectoral and disciplinary boundaries. We consider in this regard that the ERC grants have a particularly structuring effect on the attraction of a certain research location, and hence on creating structural conditions for the development of research of highest quality, beyond the specific context of the ERC project. It can be argued that making national research systems more effective is primarily an issue of national RTI policy. However, Horizon 2020 can support such policy changes, provide organizational learning for participants, and thus have a structural impact in that regard. ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 17
18 While the optimum ratio between competitive funding and institutional funding is not clear, nor easy to harmonize between different research systems, success in H2020 calls, namely in ERC calls, reflects the capacity to succeed in competitive funding structure, and can contribute to improve it. The Horizon 2020 itself is a competitive programme and can raise the competitive share of research funding. It can thus be argued, that the higher a country s participation success in Horizon 2020 is, the more this contributes to the effectiveness of national research systems. Following this example, we consider that the structural impact of the FPs at the national level can be indicated through the different ERA Priorities, which are already structural dimensions at the intersection between the national and European levels. In this way, we analyse the structural impacts through the lens of ERA Priorities and indicators identified in that regard. Indicators Priority 1 - Effective national research systems o Number of participations in H2020 per 1000 researchers (FTE) o Number of ERC grants per 1000 researchers (FTE) o Identification of new funding instruments implemented nationally based on H2020 instruments (number and funding level) qualitative analysis Success in participating in international competitive funding programmes is considered to reflect and to contribute to the effectiveness of national research systems, and the experience of participating may contribute to enhance the organization of local research funding systems Includes additional national funding (in ) for above threshold proposals, not funded through H2020 (e.g. seal of excellence) o Number of participation of MS/AC in mutual learning exercises and peer-reviews organised under the H2020 Policy Support Facility ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 18
19 Priority 2a - Optimal transnational cooperation and competition o National public funding to H2020-supported transnational cooperation initiatives (e.g. ERA-NETs, JTIs and JPIs) in % of total GBARD o Alignment of strategies/measures/programmes of EU MS/AC with jointly prepared strategies/measures/programmes at European level qualitative analysis o International scientific co-publications, with ERA countries, from H2020 projects per 1000 researchers (FTE) in the public and higher education sector The impact of the national funding to joint initiatives is partly dependent on the alignment of national and joint strategies. Priority 2b - European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures o Availability of national roadmaps with identified ESFRI projects and corresponding investment needs (ESFRI) o Share of participations in H2020 funded research infrastructures (INFRA Pilar 1) (%) o Number of researchers with access to research infrastructures through H2020 These indicators reflect the potential impact on structuring research infrastructures in each country Priority 3: Open Labour Market for Researchers o Share of participations in Marie Slodowska-Curie projects (%) Comparison with overall national participation in H2020 Comparison, in relative terms (number of researchers FTE), with other countries ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 19
20 o Balance of outgoing and incoming researchers through MSCA and ERC grants Number of outgoing researchers through MSCA and ERC grants (residents going abroad) Number on incoming researchers through MSCA and ERC grants (non-residents moving to the country) o Number of researcher posts funded by H2020 advertised through the EURAXESS job portal, per researchers in the public and HE sector H2020 mobility programmes contribute to more open labour market, reflecting both inwards and outwards mobility; o Percentage of early-career researchers supported by MSCA or ERC starting grants, whose jobs were secured after termination of project funding (disaggregated by gender and origin [national/international]) Priority 4: Gender Equality and Gender Mainstreaming in Research o Share of women as coordinators of national teams in H2020 compared to overall distribution and to national average in similar programmes; o Share of women among national participants in H2020 projects o Share of publications resulting from H2020 projects with gender dimension in research content Priority 5a: Scientific knowledge transfer o H2020 projects with collaboration between HEI/REC and firms o domestic firms in COST actions in % of all participations of a country in COST actions o Number of public-private co-publications from H2020 projects per 1000 researchers ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 20
21 Priority 5b: Promoting Open Access to scientific publications o Share of H2020 scientific publications published in open access (total/diamond, gold and green) o Number of projects producing open data sets o Share of H2020 projects with evaluated data management plans (DMPs) in % of granted H2020 projects Priority 6: International cooperation o Number of collaborations in H2020 projects with non-era partners o International scientific co-publications, with non-era countries, from H2020 projects per 1000 researchers (FTE) in the public and HE sector o Participation in projects with an explicit international dimension in Horizon 2020 o Number and funding volume of multilateral joint calls with non-era countries These indicators reflect the impact of the participation in the FPs on the global collaboration patterns, on the one hand, and, on the other, on the development of projects with an external outlook. ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 21
22 Table 2 - Structuring Impacts Questions Methodologies Indicators Databases - Number of participations in H2020 per 1000 researchers (FTE) (C*) Has participation in the FPs contributed to more effective national research system? - Descriptive statistics - Case study - Number of approved ERC grants per 1000 researchers (FTE) (C*) - Identification of new funding instruments implemented nationally based on H2020 instruments (number and funding level) Includes additional national funding (in ) for above threshold proposals, not funded through H2020 (e.g. seal of excellence) - Number of participation of MS/AC in mutual learning exercises and peerreviews organised under the H2020 Policy Support Facility - ecorda; National STI Statistics - ecorda; National STI Statistics - Secondary sources; interviews ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 22
23 Has participation in the FPs promoted optimal transnational cooperation and competition? - Desk research - National public funding to H2020- supported transnational cooperation initiatives (e.g. ERA-NETs, JTIs and JPIs) in % of total GBARD (C*) - Alignment of strategies and programmes of EU MS/AC with jointly prepared strategies or programmes at European level - National STI Statistics - Secondary sources; interviews - International scientific co-publications, with non-era countries, from H2020 projects per 1000 researchers (FTE) in the public and HE sector Has participation in the FPs contributed to the coordination of European research infrastructures? - Desk research - Descriptive statistics - Availability of national roadmaps with identified ESFRI projects and corresponding investment needs (ESFRI) - Share of participations in H2020 funded research infrastructures (INFRA Pilar 1) (%) (C*) - National policy documents - ecorda data - Number of researchers with access to research infrastructures through H H2020 Monitoring Report ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 23
24 - Share of participations in Marie Sklodowska- Curie projects (%) (C*) - Balance of outgoing and incoming researchers through MSCA and ERC grants Number of outgoing researchers through MSCA and ERC grants (residents going abroad) - H2020 Monitoring Indicators Has participation in the FPs promoted a more open labour market for researchers? - Descriptive statistics - Desk research Number on incoming researchers through MSCA and ERC grants (non-residents moving to the country) - Number of researcher posts funded by H2020 advertised through the EURAXESS job portal, per researchers in the public and HE sector - ecorda - Percentage of earlycareer researchers supported by MSCA or ERC starting grants, whose jobs were secured after termination of project funding disaggregated by gender and origin [national/international]) ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 24
25 Has participation in the FPs contributed to gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research? Descriptive statistics Content analysis - Share of women as coordinators of national teams in H2020 compared to overall distribution (C*) - Share of women among national participants in H2020 projects - Share of publications resulting from H2020 projects with gender dimension in research content - ecorda data - Web of Science / Scopus Has participation in the FPs contributed to improved knowledge exchange? Descriptive statistics - H2020 projects with collaboration between HEI/REC and firms (C*) - domestic firms in COST actions in % of all participations of a country in COST actions - Number of publicprivate co-publications from H2020 projects per 1000 researchers - ecorda data - COST projects data Has participation in the FPs promoted open access to scientific publications? Descriptive statistics Desk research - Share of H2020 scientific publications published in open access (total//diamond, gold and green) - Number of projects producing open data sets - Share of H2020 projects with evaluated data management plans (DMPs) - Web of Science / Scopus - OpenAIRE -Project Data ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 25
26 - ecorda data Descriptive statistics - Number of collaborations in H2020 projects with non-era partners Has participation in the FPs strengthened international cooperation? Content analysis Desk research - International scientific co-publications, with non-era countries, from H2020 projects per 1000 researchers (FTE) in the public and HE sector - Web of Science / Scopus Network analysis - Number and funding volume of multilateral joint calls with non-era countries - National data Note: All references to specific data is relative to corresponding national data, unless noted (e.g. H2020 projects refers to H2020 projects with national participation) ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 26
27 Scientific impacts The European Framework Programmes have been central instruments in the strengthening of the European science and technology knowledge base, which remains as a central objective and potential impact at the national level, in addition to the contribution to technological competitiveness. As such, the impact of the FPs in the national S&T knowledge base should also be assessed on the basis of the scientific impacts from participation in the FPs. While the traditional collaborative dimension of the FPs have been of central importance to the consolidation of the European Research Area, and to the strengthening of the international scientific networks, funding through the European Research Council can have direct impact on the scientific performance of the supported research teams, providing conditions for the development of world-level research. The Excellent Science Pillar in Horizon 2020 is expected to support excellent, risky research, strengthening research at the national level and creating conditions for the advanced training of the next generation of scientists. Since this pillar is most representative of the objective of the FPs to contribute to the strengthening of the S&T knowledge base, this should receive particular focus when addressing scientific impacts. Scientific impacts have traditionally been assessed through indicators on publications of international standing, through the strengthening of international networks, reflected in international co-authorship patterns, and through the contribution to training. It should be noted that the standard cautions regarding the use of bibliometric indicators should be taken into account when analysing results. While the use suggested here focuses on overall data resulting from national participation, rather than individual or institutional analysis, and is therefore not intended for evaluation purposes but rather for overall assessment, limiting some of the well-known implications of using bibliometric data in those contexts, it should nevertheless be noted that overall comparison, at international level or with the overall programme, should take into consideration the profile of national participation and the corresponding field distribution. As such, when considering publication and citation data, field normalization should be adopted. ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 27
28 Particular care should be taken to analyse publication data from the social sciences and the humanities. Indicators The following indicators are suggested to assess the scientific impacts at national level: Participation in the Excellent Science Pillar, with particular reference to ERC projects o Number of projects awarded, number of projects coordinated, number of total national participations, total funding awarded, success rates o these absolute values should be made comparable in relation to each country s research base (as measured by the number of researchers in FTE) and comparable in relation to the yearly progression; H2020 academic output in terms of papers, journals and books published o Compared to national publication indicators o Compared to the same indicator for national ERC projects Number and share of scientific articles 4 in top 10% highly-cited papers o Compared to national publication indicators o Compared to the same indicator for national ERC projects o Compared to the same indicator for national scientific articles internationally co-authored 4 References to publications and other outputs refer to the publications and outputs from the H2020 projects, unless otherwise noted. ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 28
29 Number and share of scientific articles published in high-impact journals o Compared to national publication indicators o Compared to the same indicator for national ERC projects o Compared to the same indicator for national scientific articles internationally co-authored Average citation rate of H2020 publications (field normalized) o Compared to national publication indicators o Compared to the same indicator for national ERC projects o Compared to the same indicator for national scientific articles internationally co-authored Number and share of internationally co-authored scientific articles (considering coauthorship with ERA countries, with non-era countries and with all) o Compared to national publication indicators o Compared to the same indicator for national ERC projects International PhD programmes through MSCA o Number of publications from ITN programmes, in relation to number of ITN programmes o Assessment of the training programme and quality of the research output Case study understanding differences from national programs ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 29
30 Table 3 - Scientific Impact Questions Methodologies Indicators Databases - Participation in the Excellent Science Pillar, with particular reference to ERC projects (C*) Is the national research community proposing excellent science? Descriptive statistics - Number of projects awarded, number of projects coordinated, number of total national participations, total funding awarded, success rates (C*) ecorda Data - Academic output in terms of papers, journals and books published - Number and share of scientific articles in top 10% highly-cited publications of the field; Is participation in the Excellent Science Pillar promoting excellent research? Scientometric analysis Altmetrics - Number and share of scientific articles published in high-impact journals (top 10% in the field) - Average citation rate of H2020 publications (field normalized) - Number and share of internationally coauthored scientific articles - WoS, Scopus - Project Reporting - Citations in social networks (using altmetrics) to scientific publications from FP projects ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 30
31 Is the participation in the FPs promoting international research collaboration? Scientometric analysis - Proportion of internationally coauthored scientific articles WoS, Scopus ecorda Data Descriptive statistics - Participation in International Training Networks through Marie-Sklodowska Curie Actions (ITN) ecorda Data Is the participation in the FPs enhancing training? Scientometric analysis - Number of publications from ITN programmes; WoS, Scopus Case studies - Assessment of the training programme and quality of research output ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 31
32 Innovation impacts The impact on the innovative capability of the European industry is, arguably, the main objective of the Framework Programmes and ought to be identified here in particular, independently from the wider economic impacts of the national participation. The FPs provide support to research and innovation projects, in international collaboration, thus contributing to advanced innovation processes. Often involving active collaborations between business firms and universities and public research institutes, in leading edge research and innovation, the participation in the FPs contributes to the improvement of the absorptive capacity of firms. It also contributes to open the knowledge flows for the innovation process, bidirectionally, both as a benefit for the firm, benefitting from advanced knowledge in the public research system, and for public research actors, experiencing the needs of innovative firms at the European level. While the whole FPs are oriented towards innovation, particularly instruments can be singled out as exemplary of specific innovation processes, in emerging areas and with regard to the involvement of SMEs. These can be considered quite different instruments and beneficiaries, but are indicative of different innovation processes that also reflect specific concerns at the national level. Participation in these programmes are indicative in this regard (Industrial Leadership Pillar is considered more widely in regard to the economic impacts). Indicators Participation in the Future and Emerging Technologies and the Innovation in SMEs programmes; Participation of SMEs; FP funding to firms vs trend in BERD o Number of projects awarded, number of projects coordinated, number of total national participations, total funding awarded, success rates ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 32
33 o these absolute values should be made comparable in relation to each country s research base (as measured by the number of researchers in FTE), and to the overall national share of participation; Although all the programmes are expected to have an impact on innovative processes, here there is a focus on the FET and SME Innovation programmes, as a specific focus; other analysis takes into account all H2020 projects Number of patent, licence applications Co-authored publications between HEIs and firms Innovations introduced (product and process) Cooperation between public and private orgs Sources of knowledge in innovation (CIS Data) Number of new knowledge-intensive companies, including spin offs and spin outs o Compared to national figures Case studies on the success of leading R&D projects to the market For the analysis of these impacts a control group of non-participating firms must be identified, with data collected (when available) for both groups; Survey is only recommended if other methods are not available and if considered as a possible option. ERAC 1206/17 MI/evt 33
ERAC 1204/17 MI/evt 1 DGG 3 C
EUROPEAN UNION EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA AND INNOVATION COMMITTEE ERAC Secretariat Brussels, 9 June 2017 (OR. en) ERAC 1204/17 NOTE From: To: Subject: ERAC Secretariat ERAC delegations Mandate of the Standing
More information14516/18 MI/evt 1 ECOMP.3.C
Council of the European Union Brussels, 22 November 2018 (OR. en) 14516/18 RECH 501 COMPET 800 NOTE From: Permanent Representatives Committee (Part 1) To: Subject: Council Draft Council conclusions on
More informationWORKING PAPER. Brussels, 23 November 2018 WK 14345/2018 INIT LIMITE RECH
Council of the European Union General Secretariat Brussels, 23 November 2018 WK 14345/2018 INIT LIMITE RECH WORKING PAPER This is a paper intended for a specific community of recipients. Handling and further
More informationH2020 priorities. Industrial leadership - Priority II Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies Access to risk finance Innovation in SMEs
H2020 priorities Excellent Science - Priority I European Research Council Future and Emerging Technologies Marie Sk odowska-curie Actions Research Infrastructures Industrial leadership - Priority II Leadership
More informationMID-TERM REVIEW MEETING
MID-TERM REVIEW MEETING ASTRONET II Guildford Mika LEVONEN 2-3/12/2013 1. Why a Mid-Term Review Meeting? 2. Obligations of the Network 3. Success Stories 4. What does the EU contribution consist of? 5.
More informationEuropean Research Area - An open labour market for researchers Sanopoulos Dimitrios
European Research Area - An open labour market for researchers Sanopoulos Dimitrios Centre for Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH) 1 European Research Area (Article 179 of the Treaty) "in which, researchers,
More informationDanish position paper on the next EU framework programme for research and innovation
Danish position paper on the next EU framework programme for research and innovation 8 March 2011 1) Introduction We live in a time of serious strain on public sector budgets and increasing global competition.
More informationWORKING PAPER. Brussels, 23 November 2018 WK 14491/2018 INIT LIMITE RECH
Council of the European Union General Secretariat Brussels, 23 November 2018 WK 14491/2018 INIT LIMITE RECH WORKING PAPER This is a paper intended for a specific community of recipients. Handling and further
More informationERAC 1206/16 MI/evt 1 DGG 3 C
EUROPEAN UNION EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA AND INNOVATION COMMITTEE ERAC Secretariat Brussels, 4 May 2016 (OR. en) ERAC 1206/16 NOTE From: To: Subject: ERAC Secretariat ERAC delegations Mandate of the Standing
More informationREPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 19.9.2012 COM(2012) 515 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
More informationMarie Skłodowska-Curie Actions under Horizon 2020
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions under Horizon 2020 Agenda Marie Curie achievements Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions: Objectives and rationale Feedback received Key features MSC Actions under
More informationPolicy Research and. Brussels, 17/11/12. Innovation. Flattening Europe: We need to close the Research and Innovation Divide.
The Regional Dimension of Andrew Bianco Project Officer, Regional Dimension of Research and Directorate Directorate General for Research and European Commission andrew.bianco@ec.europa.eu Brussels, 17/11/12
More information15320/17 MI/lv 1 DG G 3 C
Council of the European Union Brussels, 1 December 2017 (OR. en) 15320/17 RECH 404 COMPET 851 OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS From: To: General Secretariat of the Council Delegations No. prev. doc.: 14469/17 Subject:
More informationCouncil of the European Union Brussels, 13 November 2015 (OR. en)
Council of the European Union Brussels, 13 November 2015 (OR. en) 13902/15 RECH 271 COMPET 503 SOC 650 NOTE From: To: General Secretariat of the Council Permanent Representatives Committee No. prev. doc.:
More informationMarie Skłodowska-Curie COFUND in Horizon 2020 Fellowship programmes
Marie Skłodowska-Curie COFUND in Horizon 2020 Fellowship programmes Cristina Paducea The Research Executive Agency Paris, 18 May 2016 Date: in 12 pts H2020 priorities Excellent Science - Priority I European
More informationDelegations will find attached the ERAC 2015 Annual Report as adopted by written procedure.
EUROPEAN UNION EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA AND INNOVATION COMMITTEE ERAC Secretariat Brussels, 8 September 2016 (OR. en) ERAC 1210/16 NOTE From: To: Subject: ERAC Secretariat ERAC delegations ERAC 2015 Annual
More informationERAC 1211/11 UM/nj 1
EUROPEAN UNION EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA COMMITTEE ERAC Secretariat Brussels, 23 June 2011 ERAC 1211/11 NOTE To: Subject: ERAC delegations ERAC Opinion on the Modernisation of Universities The attached ERAC
More informationPreliminary position of Latvia on the next Framework Programme. for research and Innovation ( FP9 )
Preliminary position of Latvia on the next Framework Programme Introduction for research and Innovation ( FP9 ) 17/04/2018 High quality, socially relevant and open research and innovation play increasingly
More informationERAC-GPC 1304/17 AF/nj 1 DG G 3 C
EUROPEAN UNION EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA AND INNOVATION COMMITTEE High Level Group for Joint Programming Secretariat Brussels, 7 June 2017 (OR. en) ERAC-GPC 1304/17 NOTE Subject: GPC opinion on the "Future
More informationIndividual Fellowships Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions MSCA IF 2018 Call
Individual Fellowships Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions MSCA IF 2018 Call Cristina Gómez National Contact Point (NCP) CP MSCA Bilbao, May, 8th 2018 CONTENT I. MSCA Spanish NCP Support activities II. MSCA
More informationConclusions of the project Features of PPPs in FPI MUTUAL LEARNING EXERCISE CARLOS MARTÍNEZ BRUSSELS, 19th OCTOBER 2016
Conclusions of the project Features of PPPs in FPI MUTUAL LEARNING EXERCISE CARLOS MARTÍNEZ BRUSSELS, 19th OCTOBER 2016 Definition Definition of PPPs in this MLE exercise What they are NOT: Merely project-based
More information7800/16 AFG/evt 1 DG G 3 C
Council of the European Union Brussels, 13 April 2016 (OR. en) 7800/16 RECH 92 TELECOM 43 NOTE From: To: Subject: Presidency Delegations Draft Council conclusions on the transition towards an Open Science
More informationEuropean Research Area TOWARDS A MAASTRICHT FOR RESEARCH June 2013
European Research Area TOWARDS A MAASTRICHT FOR RESEARCH June 2013 Amalia Sartori, MEP - Chairwoman ITRE Committee Luigi Berlinguer, MEP - Former Italian Minister for Research Research and innovation are
More informationMLE country visit Croatia September Dr. Irmela BRACH Senior Policy Officer DG RTD B.2 Open Science and ERA Policy
Evaluation of Research Careers fully acknowledging Open Science Practices Rewards, incentives and/or recognition for researchers practicing Open Science MLE country visit Croatia 12-13 September 2017 Dr.
More informationMinimum standards. Guiding principles. National Contact Points
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR RESEARCH & INNOVATION HORIZON 2020 The New EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation running from 2014 to 2020 Minimum standards and Guiding principles for setting up systems
More informationEuropean Research Area A MAASTRICHT FOR RESEARCH
September 2013 European Research Area A MAASTRICHT FOR RESEARCH Amalia Sartori, MEP - Chairwoman ITRE Committee Luigi Berlinguer, MEP - Former Italian Minister for Research Research and innovation are
More informationDoctoral Training in the European Research Area
Research & Innovation Doctoral Training in the European Research Area 8th EUA-CDE Annual Meeting Friday 19 June 2015 Fabienne Gautier Head of Unit, DG RTD B2 European Research Area (Article 179 of the
More informationEuropean Research Area for All
European Research Area for All Preliminary position of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic on the design of the 9th EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation
More informationMarie Skłodowska Curie Actions (MSCA): Innovative Training Networks (ITN) Research and Innovation Staff Exchange (RISE)
Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions (MSCA): Innovative Training Networks (ITN) Research and Innovation Staff Exchange (RISE) Anett Kiss and Elena Dennison Research and Enterprise Services 21 st February 2014
More informationEUA s Response to the Consultation on the Revision of the EU s Modernisation Agenda
EUA s Response to the Consultation on the Revision of the EU s Modernisation Agenda Full Statement INTRODUCTION With the present statement the European University Association (EUA) responds to the consultation
More informationAdvancing Gender Equality in the European Research Area
Advancing Gender Equality in the European Research Area I) Introduction: The global talent competition: a level playing field? Ensuring gender equality is not only a matter of fairness; it is also an issue
More information«People» Marie Curie Actions
FP7 Specific Programme «People» Marie Curie Actions Georges Bingen Head of Marie Curie Fellowship unit Directorate General Research 1 Policy context: Human resources in R&D Financial instrument: Marie
More informationEuropean Research Area. Progress Report ERA Monitoring Handbook EUR EN. Research and Innovation
European Research Area Progress Report 2016 ERA Monitoring Handbook Research and Innovation EUR 28430 EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate B Open Innovation
More informationStudy on Social Impact Assessment as a tool for mainstreaming social inclusion and social protection concerns in public policy in EU Member States
Study on Social Impact Assessment as a tool for mainstreaming social inclusion and social protection concerns in public policy in EU Member States EXECUTIVE SUMMARY June 2010 Introduction This study was
More informationRepublic of Serbia Bilateral screening: Chapter 25. ERA progress report and ERA Governance
Republic of Serbia Bilateral screening: Chapter 25 ERA progress report and ERA Governance Brussels, 01 December 2014 Content of the presentation I Relevant EU Acquis II ERA progress report 2014 III Serbia
More informationCOMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT. Horizon Europe Stakeholder Consultation Synopsis Report. Accompanying the document.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 7.6.2018 SWD(2018) 309 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Horizon Europe Stakeholder Consultation Synopsis Report Accompanying the document Proposals for a REGULATION
More informationMarie Skłodowska-Curie. Individual Fellowships Workshop
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships Workshop Research Service - UPF h 16 th May 2017 Overview Excellent Industrial Societal Science Leadership Challenges European Research Council (ERC) Future
More informationIF Call 2016 Relevant EU Policies
IF Call 2016 Relevant EU Policies Disclaimer: This document is not exhaustive. It describes the most common EU policies which refer to research, researcher careers and inter-sectoral and international
More informationA European labour market for researchers
Europe s open strategy on human resources in R&D Joint OECD-MEXT Workshop on International Mobility of Researchers Paris, 28 March 2007 European Commission DG Research Cornelis Vis Universities and Researchers
More informationERAC-SFIC 1352/18 TP/cb 1 DG G 3 C
EUROPEAN UNION EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA AND INNOVATION COMMITTEE Strategic Forum for International S&T Cooperation Secretariat Brussels, 23 January 2018 (OR. en) ERAC-SFIC 1352/18 NOTE From: To: Subject:
More informationTHE GENDER DIMENSION OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION HORIZON 2020
THE GENDER DIMENSION OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION HORIZON 2020 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP FOR RESEARCHERS COST TARGETED NETWORK TN1201 25th April, 2016 General view Gender in Horizon 2020 Implementation
More informationHigher Education Funding Council for England Call for Evidence: KEF metrics
January 2018 Higher Education Funding Council for England Call for Evidence: KEF metrics Written submission on behalf of the Engineering Professors Council Introduction 1. The Engineering Professors Council
More informationRewards and Professional Development for Open Science and Open Education: Reflections and Recommendations of the SGHRM
Rewards and Professional Development for Open Science and Open Education: Reflections and Recommendations of the SGHRM 5 September 2017, ETH Zurich Cecilia Cabello Valdés Steering Group for Human Resources
More informationNOTE ERAC delegations Draft Summary conclusions of the 2nd meeting of ERAC, held in Brussels, on 7 and 8 October 2010
EUROPEAN UNION EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA COMMITTEE ERAC Secretariat Brussels, 17 November 2010 ERAC 1207/10 NOTE To: Subject: ERAC delegations Draft Summary conclusions of the 2nd meeting of ERAC, held in
More informationREPORT. of the Slovenian Expert Group on the next Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP9)
REPORT of the Slovenian Expert Group on the next Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP9) January 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Guiding principles 4 1 st BLOCK: Governance and priority-making
More informationHave we adopted the recommendations? What about the REF?
The UK s European university Responsible Metrics The Metric Tide Have we adopted the recommendations? What about the REF? June 7 th, Liverpool Simon Kerridge Director of Research Services University of
More informationItaly and the European challenge
Towards the next Framework Programme Italy and the European challenge Rome, 12 Dec. 2017 Fulvio Esposito Technical Secretariat for Research Policies Department for Higher Education & Research Italian Ministry
More information9291/18 MVG/evt 1 DG G 3 C
Council of the European Union Brussels, 29 May 2018 (OR. en) 9291/18 OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS From: On: 29 May 2018 To: General Secretariat of the Council Delegations RECH 224 TELECOM 150 IND 142 MI 392
More informationWORKING PAPER. Brussels, 08 June 2017 WK 6397/2017 INIT LIMITE ERAC
Brussels, 08 June 2017 WK 6397/2017 INIT LIMITE ERAC WORKING PAPER This is a paper intended for a specific community of recipients. Handling and further distribution are under the sole responsibility of
More informationSpecific Programme People. Marie Curie Actions. Agata Stasiak. Institutional Fellowships Directorate General Research European Commission
Specific Programme People Marie Curie Actions from the 6 th to the 7 th Framework Programme Agata Stasiak Institutional Fellowships Directorate General Research European Commission Agata.Stasiak@ec.europa.eu
More informationEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory s position paper on the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020
European Molecular Biology Laboratory s position paper on the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 I. Introduction role of EMBL in life science research in Europe The European Molecular Biology Laboratory
More informationPriorities for exit negotiations
June 2017 What should be the government s priorities for exit negotiations and policy development to maximise the contribution of British universities to a successful and global UK? As government looks
More informationTable of Contents. Mob-A. Road Map of Calls for Proposals...63 Mob-B. Evaluation criteria for evaluating proposals...64
Table of Contents 0. GENERAL INTRODUCTION...3 1. General...3 2. Scope of Work Programme...3 3. Cross Cutting Issues...3 4. Submitting a Proposal...5 5. Evaluation Criteria and Related Issues...5 6. Specific
More information"Winning a Research Fellowship"
"Winning a Research Fellowship" Engineering Department Postdoc Committee Event Dr. Konstantinos Dimos Marie-Curie Individual Fellow "Winning a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship" European Commission
More informationOpinions in view of the discussion of the next EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. Introduction and summary of comments.
Memorandum 2 November 2017 U2017/03983 Ministry of Education and Research Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation Opinions in view of the discussion of the next EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation
More informationMOBILITY PROGRAMME Call for Proposals 2017/2018. FBK MOBILITY4RESEARCH PROGRAMME - 2 nd Phase CALL FOR PROPOSALS 2017/2018 OVERVIEW
FBK MOBILITY4RESEARCH PROGRAMME - 2 nd Phase CALL FOR PROPOSALS 2017/2018 OVERVIEW The Bruno Kessler Foundation fosters the enhancement of human capital engaged in research by introducing instruments for
More informationFrequently Asked Questions: UN-SWAP Evaluation Performance Indicator Reporting
Reference Document Frequently Asked Questions: UN-SWAP Evaluation Performance Indicator Reporting November 2016 UNEG SO3 Working Group on Gender Equality & Human Rights Introduction This FAQ was developed
More informationVademecum on Gender Equality in Horizon 2020
RTD-B7 Science with and for Society 26-02-2014 1 Vademecum on Gender Equality in Horizon 2020 I. INTRO The purpose of this Vademecum is to provide the Commission/ Agency staff 2, potential applicants,
More informationStudy on Fostering Industrial Talents in Research at European Level. Executive Summary
Study on Fostering Industrial Talents in Research at European Level Executive Summary January 2018 EN Study on Fostering Industrial Talents in Research at European Level Executive Summary European Commission
More informationCOUNCIL DECISION. of 19 December 2006
L 400/270 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.12.2006 COUNCIL DECISION of 19 December 2006 concerning the specific programme "People" implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European
More informationSecretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 15 July 2013 (OR. en) 12378/13 ADD 2 COVER NOTE From: date of receipt: 12 July 2013 To: No. Cion doc.: Subject: RECH 360 ENER 364 COMPET 578 ENV 709 Secretary-General
More informationTHEMATIC COMPILATION OF RELEVANT INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY GREECE ARTICLE 10 UNCAC PUBLIC REPORTING
THEMATIC COMPILATION OF RELEVANT INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY GREECE GREECE (SEVENTH MEETING) ARTICLE 10 UNCAC PUBLIC REPORTING Government initiatives for the strengthening of transparency in the public administration.
More informationSTATE AID FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION
18 March 2014 STATE AID FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION KEY MESSAGES 1 2 3 4 Innovation is crucial to maintaining and strengthening Europe s global competitiveness. R&D and innovation
More informationMarie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, Guide for Applicants Innovative Training Networks 2018 Page 6 of Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol.
Definitions used throughout this Guide: Action: under Horizon 2020, "action" refers to the specific project to be implemented by the beneficiaries. Early-Stage Researchers (ESRs) must, at the date of recruitment
More informationSUPPORT FOR AN INNOVATION POLICY AGENDA
SUPPORT FOR AN INNOVATION POLICY AGENDA SUPPORT FOR AN INNOVATION POLICY AGENDA CONTEXT... 1 OBJECTIVES OF AN INNOVATION POLICY AGENDA... 2 METHODOLOGY FOR AN INNOVATION FRAMEWORK AGENDA... 3 A. SUPPORT
More informationFP7 ex post and H2020 interim evaluation of Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FP7 ex post and H2020 interim evaluation of Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture Directorate C Innovation,
More informationMARIE CURIE ACTIONS. European Industrial Doctorates
MARIE CURIE ACTIONS European Industrial Doctorates Vanessa Debiais-Sainton Policy Officer DG Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth Unit C3, Marie Curie Actions AGENDA Objectives of Marie Curie
More informationCall for concept notes
Government institutions, Non-state Actors and Private Sector Organizations VPA Countries Support to the VPA process Call for concept notes Deadline for submission of concept notes: 29 June 2018, 16:00
More informationD3.6 Guidelines on standardisation of procedures for initiating new activities
D3.6 Guidelines on standardisation of procedures for initiating new activities August 2017 Deliverable 3.6 by: Romano Zilli (Task Leader 3.5), Evgeniya Titarenko, Carlo Corradini, Marina Bagni. The overall
More informationMARIE CURIE RESEARCHERS AND THEIR LONG-TERM CAREER DEVELOPMENT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
MARIE CURIE RESEARCHERS AND THEIR LONG-TERM CAREER DEVELOPMENT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY Presentation of the study results People Programme Committee Brussels, 19 December 2013 Study context Main objective
More informationMARIE CURIE RESEARCHERS AND THEIR LONG-TERM CAREER DEVELOPMENT: a comparative study
MARIE CURIE RESEARCHERS AND THEIR LONG-TERM CAREER DEVELOPMENT: a comparative study MARIE SKŁODOWSKA-CURIE ACTIONS 2014 Conference Trento, 18 November 2014 Sara Gysen GfK 1 Study context Main objective
More informationWhy does ERA Need to Flourish
Why does ERA Need to Flourish Open, transparent and merit-based recruitment, a priority for the European Research Area and for the Human Resources Strategy for Researchers Research and Innovation Teresa
More informationMonitoring, evaluation and impact assessment of innovationenhancing
MLE on Innovation-Enhancing Procurement Vienna, 21st September 2017 Monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment of innovationenhancing procurement Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia Deusto Business School
More informationMONTENEGRO. National Roadmap on the European Research Area (ERA)
MONTENEGRO National Roadmap on the European Research Area (ERA) April 2016 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CEI CRDS CoE EC ERA ERAC ESFRI H2020 HEI HERIC HR IAEA ICGEB IPA IPR JPI MoS NGOs R&D R&I RI RPO RFO SFIC
More informationAbsorptive Capacity in Australian Industry
Absorptive Capacity in Australian Industry Don Scott-Kemmis Alan Jones, Deepak Sardana, Chaiwat Chitravas & Technopolis, UK Seminar Presentation Australian Innovation Research Centre University of Tasmania
More information1. IDENTIFICATION Title/Number
ANNEX 3 of the Commission Decision on the Annual Action Programme in favour of the Pacific Region Action Fiche for Strengthening Non-State Actor Engagement in Regional Policy Development and Implementation
More informationTrade Union Organisational Capacity tool (TUOC-tool)
1 Trade Union Organisational Capacity tool (TUOC-tool) Contents Trade Union Organisational Capacity tool (TUOC-tool)... 1 1. Introduction... 2 2. Trade union ways of looking at organisational capacity...
More informationVSNU POSITION PAPER HORIZON 2020
VSNU POSITION PAPER HORIZON 2020 January 2017 Introduction The Dutch universities consider the European research programmes to be of great added European value and key to maintain a strong position within
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION. Contact: Julie Sainz European Commission B-1049 Brussels
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Education and Culture Directorate B Modernisation of Education II: Education policy and programme, Innovation, EIT and MSCA Unit B.3 Innovation in education,
More informationSpeech by William Rutledge, Executive Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Regulatory Convergence and Difference in the Approaches between the EU and the US Speech by William Rutledge, Executive Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York A. Opening Perspectives on
More informationMarie Curie researchers and their long-term career development: A comparative study
Marie Curie researchers and their long-term career development: A comparative study Executive Summary Written by: March 2014 Seventh Framework Programme Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
More informationBR(12)3134. Horizon The EU Framework Programme for. Anne-Sophie Lequarré Research and Innovation. Research and Innovation
BR(12)3134 Horizon 2020 The EU Framework Programme for Research and Anne-Sophie Lequarré 2014-2020 Research and Investment in R&D is part of the solution to exit from the economic crises What is Horizon
More information16/06/2017. Workshop : How to write a proposal. H2020 in a nustchell. Introduction. 1st phase. Pre writing
H2020 in a nustchell Workshop : How to write a proposal How to write a proposal Ho Chi Minh Introduction Find a call Organise the writing calendar Build your partnershiph Pre writing 1st phase Writing
More informationHow to map excellence in research and technological development in Europe
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 12.3.2001 SEC(2001) 434 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER How to map excellence in research and technological development in Europe TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION...
More informationPEOPLE 1 WORK PROGRAMME (European Commission C(2007)3123 of )
WORK PROGRAMME 2007-2008 PEOPLE 1 (European Commission C(2007)3123 of 29.06.2007) 1 In accordance with Articles 163 to 173 of the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 166(1) as contextualised in the following
More informationCOUNCIL DECISION. of 19 December 2006
22.2.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 54/91 Corrigendum to Council Decision 2006/973/EC of 19 December 2006 concerning the specific programme People implementing the Seventh Framework Programme
More informationCollaborative Economy: estimation methods for the accommodation sector. Results from the demand approach
Collaborative Economy: estimation methods for the accommodation sector. Results from the demand approach B. Corral Orgaz 1, F. Cortina García 2, B. González Olmos 3, M. Izquierdo Valverde 4, J. Prado Mascuñano,
More informationUOA 28, Mechanical, Aeronautical and Manufacturing Engineering
UOA 28, Mechanical, Aeronautical and Manufacturing Engineering This statement should be read alongside the statement for Main Panel G and the generic statement. Panel G Absences of chair and declaration
More informationMarie Skłodowska-Curie actions on skills, training and career development
Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions on skills, training and career development What about EU RDI programmes? Some figures on Marie Curie 2007-2013 General 80 000 researchers financed since creation of MCA (1996)
More informationROADMAP. A. Context, Subsidiarity Check and Objectives
TITLE OF THE INITIATIVE LEAD DG RESPONSIBLE UNIT AP NUMBER LIKELY TYPE OF INITIATIVE INDICATIVE PLANNING 4th quarter 2016 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ROADMAP Guidance on reforms needs for Member States in regulation
More informationEvaluation of Learned Societies Project 2014
Evaluation of Learned Societies Project 2014 Robert Dingwall Michael Hewitt Ilke Turkmendag Prepared by Dingwall Enterprises Ltd in association with Rdgenic Research Ltd. May 2014 Page 1 of 5 This is a
More informationEvaluation Framework: Research Programmes and Schemes
Evaluation Framework: Research Programmes and Schemes November 2015 BBSRC Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1UH www.bbsrc.ac.uk Why BBSRC Evaluates the Research and Training it Supports EVALUATION
More informationAssessment of progress in achieving ERA in Member States and Associated Countries. Final Report to DG Research and Innovation
Assessment of progress in achieving ERA in Member States and Associated Countries Final Report to DG Research and Innovation 8 May 2015 This page is intentionally blank Assessment of progress in achieving
More informationTransition towards an Open Science system: from vision to action
Transition towards an Open Science system: from vision to action Patrick Brenier European Commission, DG RTD unit A6 Open Science in the ERA, Ljubljana, 17 November 2016 European Open Science agenda 1.
More informationOpen Government Data Assessment Report Template
DPADM/UNDESA, Guide on Lessons for Open Government Data Action Planning Open Government Data Assessment Report Template Table of Contents Objective 2 Methodology 2 Executive Summary 5 Assessment Findings
More informationPillar II. Institutional Framework and Management Capacity
PILLAR II. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND MANAGEMENT CAPACITY Pillar II. Institutional Framework and Management Capacity Pillar II assesses how the procurement system defined by the legal and regulatory framework
More informationUKRO 2011 Annual Conference
UKRO 2011 Annual Conference Newcastle, 8 July Vanessa Debiais-Sainton Policy Officer DG Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth Unit C3, Marie Curie Actions AGENDA Objectives of Marie Curie Actions
More informationThe European vision to support Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and Local Authorities (LAs) in partner countries
The European vision to support Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and Local Authorities (LAs) in partner countries Policy Forum on Development Bangkok, Thailand 25 June 2015 European Commission, DEVCO
More informationSupporting European SMEs
Supporting European SMEs The Enterprise Europe Network in 2008-2009 Table of contents Preface... 3 In summary: significant results and conclusions... 4 In detail: Results of the Network in different areas...
More informationEURAXESS Cares about Researchers
EURAXESS Cares about Researchers Information Day National Research Institute Higher School of Economics Moscow, Russia, March 26, 2013 Assoc. Prof. Elissaveta Gourova Krassimir Dimitrov, EURAXESS BHO,
More information